Darren E Zinner1, Eric G Campbell. 1. Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, 415 South St, MS 035, Waltham, MA 02454, USA. dzinner@brandeis.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Besides the generic "basic" vs "applied" labels, little information is known about the types of life-science research conducted within academic medical centers (AMCs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative proportion, characteristics, funding, and productivity of AMC faculty by the type of research they conduct. DESIGN: Mailed survey conducted in 2007 of 3080 life-science faculty at the 50 universities with medical schools that received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2004. Response rate was 74%. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Research faculty affiliated with a medical school or teaching hospital, representing 77% of respondents (n = 1663). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type of research (basic, translational, clinical trials, health services research/clinical epidemiology, multimode, other), total funding, industry funding, publications, professional activities, patenting behavior, and industry relationships. RESULTS: Among AMC research faculty, 33.6% exclusively conducted basic science research as principal investigators compared with translational researchers (9.1%), clinical trial investigators (7.1%), and health services researchers/clinical epidemiologists (9.0%). While principal investigators garnered a mean of $410,755 in total annual research funding, 22.1% of all AMC research faculty were unsponsored, a proportion that ranged from 11.5% for basic science researchers to 46.8% for health services researchers (P < .001). The average AMC faculty member received $33,417 in industry-sponsored funding, with most of this money concentrated among clinical trial ($110,869) and multimode ($59,916) principal investigators. Translational (61.3%), clinical trial (67.3%), and multimode (70.9%) researchers were significantly more likely than basic science researchers (41.9%) to report a relationship with industry and that these relationships contributed to their most important scientific work (P < .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The research function of AMCs is active and diverse, incorporating a substantial proportion of faculty who are conducting research and publishing without sponsorship.
CONTEXT: Besides the generic "basic" vs "applied" labels, little information is known about the types of life-science research conducted within academic medical centers (AMCs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative proportion, characteristics, funding, and productivity of AMC faculty by the type of research they conduct. DESIGN: Mailed survey conducted in 2007 of 3080 life-science faculty at the 50 universities with medical schools that received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2004. Response rate was 74%. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Research faculty affiliated with a medical school or teaching hospital, representing 77% of respondents (n = 1663). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type of research (basic, translational, clinical trials, health services research/clinical epidemiology, multimode, other), total funding, industry funding, publications, professional activities, patenting behavior, and industry relationships. RESULTS: Among AMC research faculty, 33.6% exclusively conducted basic science research as principal investigators compared with translational researchers (9.1%), clinical trial investigators (7.1%), and health services researchers/clinical epidemiologists (9.0%). While principal investigators garnered a mean of $410,755 in total annual research funding, 22.1% of all AMC research faculty were unsponsored, a proportion that ranged from 11.5% for basic science researchers to 46.8% for health services researchers (P < .001). The average AMC faculty member received $33,417 in industry-sponsored funding, with most of this money concentrated among clinical trial ($110,869) and multimode ($59,916) principal investigators. Translational (61.3%), clinical trial (67.3%), and multimode (70.9%) researchers were significantly more likely than basic science researchers (41.9%) to report a relationship with industry and that these relationships contributed to their most important scientific work (P < .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The research function of AMCs is active and diverse, incorporating a substantial proportion of faculty who are conducting research and publishing without sponsorship.
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272